Yesterday, I wrote about the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Today, the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial about that same appointment. I had not planned on giving more space to the appointment. Yet, I've got to respond to the Journal Star editorial.
First, this is a quote from an article printed in the Journal Star yesterday (August 2, 2005) by William Douglas of Knight Ridder Newspapers, "Foreign affairs analysts said the political beating Bolton took at the hands of opponents--Republican majorities in the Senate twice were unable to muster enough votes to stop debate on the appointment--might cost him influence at the United Nations." Note: by Senate rule (not constitutional provision) it takes 60 votes [it was at one time 67 votes] to stop Senate debate on an issue. To approve a nomination it takes a majority vote of those Senators voting. If all 100 Senators voted--the Vice President votes in case of a tie vote, it would take 51 votes to approve John Bolton's nomination. Consequently, according to the article published yesterday in the Journal Star, the vote did not occur because the opponents (almost all Democrats) did not allow it to take place!
Today, the Journal Star editorial laments the recess appointment of John Bolton. Here are some quotes from that editorial. 1) "John Bolton was a poor choice for United Nations ambassador made worse by the fact that he does not have congressional backing." 2) "For a number of reasons, the Senate had refused to call Bolton's nomination to a vote in the six months since it was made." 3) "Unfortunately, the increasing use of recess appointments to dodge the constitutional requirement for Senate approval (Bush has made more than 100) has no such limitation."
The first major problem with all of this has nothing to do with President Bush's action. The Constitution provides for "advice and consent" of the Senate on Presidential appointments. It provides for "advice and consent"; not "advice and obstruction". If the Senate would vote on his nominations, he would not have to use the constitutionally provided method of making recess appointments! The fault lies with the Senate--not with the President!
Concerning the first quoted point of the editorial, John Bolton never needed congressional backing because Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate is the only legislative body that votes on Presidential nominations. The editorial board either does not know the constitutional procedures required or does not know what Congress is. Furthermore, the editorial staff can not possibly know if John Bolton had Senatorial backing or not because no vote was allowed to be taken. The lack of a vote was caused primarily by a minority of opposition Democrats. Allow a vote and determine the will of the Senate. Deny a vote by parliamentary procedures and you can not claim he did not have the backing of a majority of the Senate. In fact, the opposite is probably true otherwise there would be no need to block a vote. Duh!!!
Furthermore, the Senate did not refuse to call Bolton's nomination to a vote. A minority of Senators prevented a vote. That information is a direct quote from the previous day's article published in the same newspaper. Don't they read their own articles? The only true reason for not having a vote was Senatorial obstructionism by a minority of Senators. Concerning recess appointments, these are indeed provided for in the Constitution. They were used by other Presidents before President Bush. He did not invent the use of them and if he uses it more than other Presidents (the editorial did not give a comparison) it is because a minority of Senators are trying to obstruct his appointments. They know that a vote of the Senate would almost certainly result in a loss in the Senate. Vote the nomination or don't complain when the President uses constitutional means to have nominees serve the country.
Finally, this whole editorial is an awkward attempt to rewrite history. Does the Journal Star editorial staff really think that the public is so stupid that they don't recognize this blatant attempt to rewrite history that is only six months old? I think they do!
First, this is a quote from an article printed in the Journal Star yesterday (August 2, 2005) by William Douglas of Knight Ridder Newspapers, "Foreign affairs analysts said the political beating Bolton took at the hands of opponents--Republican majorities in the Senate twice were unable to muster enough votes to stop debate on the appointment--might cost him influence at the United Nations." Note: by Senate rule (not constitutional provision) it takes 60 votes [it was at one time 67 votes] to stop Senate debate on an issue. To approve a nomination it takes a majority vote of those Senators voting. If all 100 Senators voted--the Vice President votes in case of a tie vote, it would take 51 votes to approve John Bolton's nomination. Consequently, according to the article published yesterday in the Journal Star, the vote did not occur because the opponents (almost all Democrats) did not allow it to take place!
Today, the Journal Star editorial laments the recess appointment of John Bolton. Here are some quotes from that editorial. 1) "John Bolton was a poor choice for United Nations ambassador made worse by the fact that he does not have congressional backing." 2) "For a number of reasons, the Senate had refused to call Bolton's nomination to a vote in the six months since it was made." 3) "Unfortunately, the increasing use of recess appointments to dodge the constitutional requirement for Senate approval (Bush has made more than 100) has no such limitation."
The first major problem with all of this has nothing to do with President Bush's action. The Constitution provides for "advice and consent" of the Senate on Presidential appointments. It provides for "advice and consent"; not "advice and obstruction". If the Senate would vote on his nominations, he would not have to use the constitutionally provided method of making recess appointments! The fault lies with the Senate--not with the President!
Concerning the first quoted point of the editorial, John Bolton never needed congressional backing because Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate is the only legislative body that votes on Presidential nominations. The editorial board either does not know the constitutional procedures required or does not know what Congress is. Furthermore, the editorial staff can not possibly know if John Bolton had Senatorial backing or not because no vote was allowed to be taken. The lack of a vote was caused primarily by a minority of opposition Democrats. Allow a vote and determine the will of the Senate. Deny a vote by parliamentary procedures and you can not claim he did not have the backing of a majority of the Senate. In fact, the opposite is probably true otherwise there would be no need to block a vote. Duh!!!
Furthermore, the Senate did not refuse to call Bolton's nomination to a vote. A minority of Senators prevented a vote. That information is a direct quote from the previous day's article published in the same newspaper. Don't they read their own articles? The only true reason for not having a vote was Senatorial obstructionism by a minority of Senators. Concerning recess appointments, these are indeed provided for in the Constitution. They were used by other Presidents before President Bush. He did not invent the use of them and if he uses it more than other Presidents (the editorial did not give a comparison) it is because a minority of Senators are trying to obstruct his appointments. They know that a vote of the Senate would almost certainly result in a loss in the Senate. Vote the nomination or don't complain when the President uses constitutional means to have nominees serve the country.
Finally, this whole editorial is an awkward attempt to rewrite history. Does the Journal Star editorial staff really think that the public is so stupid that they don't recognize this blatant attempt to rewrite history that is only six months old? I think they do!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home